Bush: we are changing the climate, so what? - The real march

[Anonymous]

Bush to UN: 'We're Changing the Climate, So What?'

"In an extraordinarily secretive maneuver, the Bush administration has subtly altered its position on global warming, officially admitting that there is a crisis while still declining to offer policies to combat it," reports the Guardian. "A government report to the UN says that global warming exists, that it is man-made, and that it will transform the environment - all points that the current U.S. government, while never actually denying, has been reluctant to accept. However, the report suggests that the country will have to accept the changes, rather than take any action to try to avert them." The new position was posted last week on the EPA's website, but no press release was issued, and its existence only became widely known on June 3. According to The New York Times, the EPA report predicts effects in the U.S. including "disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes." Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh joined industry-backed global warming skeptics like TechCentralStation in calling on Bush to "Say it ain't so, George." Kalee Kreider, global warming campaign director of the National Environmental Trust, had a different take. "It's good they've done a 180-degree turn on the science. Given the audience, they pretty much had to," Kreider said. "But we're still waiting for a plan that mandates pollution cuts." Bush himself tried to have it both ways, dismissing the report issued under his own administration as something "put out by the bureaucracy." Source: The Guardian (UK), June 4, 2002

[Capitalist Imperial]

leftist propoganda, I don't remeber the soviet union, heavy in "dirty industries", ever stepping up on environmental issues, nor do I see any EU nation taking the lead. Our EPA does 10x the work any other nation's environmental groups do. But, as usual, it is still america's fault.

[Xvall]

"But, as usual, it is still america's fault."
Now you're catching on!

Sorry, but the Soviet union was a BIG country that broke down TEN YEARS ago. It's not very logical to blame them for today's problems.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

dam americans dont care about people capitalism dont care about no one they only care about money...they rather see the world fuck up instead of watching thier money go down...

[Anonymous]

just so americans can be rich now, people in the future will suffer. it sucks.
boycot esso!

[Anonymous]

CI for the last time I`M not leftist ok? I´m anarchist you moron! every time you speak to me you call me commie! and this is not propaganda! i dont make propaganda i just tell the truth!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Thats right, all we americans care about is $$$, and nothing else. Which countrey gives out more $$ in aid and disaster relief than any other country on earth? What nation has more of its citizens working abroad in relief efforts than anywhere else? The USA. Please,how much has cuba given in relief $$ to other nations? 0.

[Xvall]

Quote: from the anarchist on 10:08 pm on June 12, 2002
CI for the last time I`M not leftist ok? I´m anarchist you moron! every time you speak to me you call me commie! and this is not propaganda! i dont make propaganda i just tell the truth!


Generally, Anarchists are very far left-wing..

[Anonymous]

being anarchyst is about the dysbelief of any politic way, soo a real anarchist cant be leftist!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

real anrchy would mean utter violence, where pure thuggery would rule, no one really wants anarchy, not even anarchists (though they don't realize this). True anarchy would be very scary and violent for everyone, and why someone would want that is beyond me. Besides, humans are very social primates and will always develop some kind of hiearchy within groups.

[Moskitto]

America can give a lot more in foreign aid, Sweden gives more % of their GNP as foreign aid than any other country.

[Capitalist Imperial]

But the US gives the most pure dollars, and more actual people working abroad in an alturistic role than sweden.

[Fabi]

shut up about anarchy.
you dont know what you are talking about.
i am tired of it.

(the same thing was said about democracy... 'oooh.... ohhh it's gonna be violent and evil and chaos... ohmygosh, ohmygosh, never let democracy happen.')

anarchy only has to do with and absence of RULERS
and HIERARCHY. it doesnt have anything to do with CHAOS. and, btw, there is enough chaos already... and it is capitalism, so it's not that you could blame it on anarchist thought...

[Capitalist Fighter]

Moskitto, regardless of whether it's the U.S. or Sweden who donate the most amount of money to the poor, both are capitalist nations which completely disprove SS's claims and many communist claims that capitalist countries are greedy and selfish. The fact that the countries who donate the most money to poverty are all capitalist merely demonstrates that altruism that is practiced in a capitalist society.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Fabi on 2:45 pm on June 13, 2002
shut up about anarchy.
you dont know what you are talking about.
i am tired of it.

Webster's Dctionary defines "Anarchy" as: 1)absence of government; 2)political disorder and violence; 3)violence and confusion

So, Fabi, It looks like understand it perfectly. It is very simple. So, tell me, how will anarchy work and help advance the human population ina peaceful, utiopian way?

(the same thing was said about democracy... 'oooh.... ohhh it's gonna be violent and evil and chaos... ohmygosh, ohmygosh, never let democracy happen.')

anarchy only has to do with and absence of RULERS
and HIERARCHY. it doesnt have anything to do with CHAOS. and, btw, there is enough chaos already... and it is capitalism, so it's not that you could blame it on anarchist thought...

[Capitalist Imperial]

[quote]Quote: from Fabi on 2:45 pm on June 13, 2002
shut up about anarchy.
you dont know what you are talking about.
i am tired of it.

Webster's Dctionary defines "Anarchy" as: 1)absence of government; 2)political disorder and violence; 3)violence and confusion

So, Fabi, It looks like understand it perfectly. It is very simple. So, tell me, how will anarchy work and help advance the human population ina peaceful, utiopian way?

[Capitalist Imperial]

[quote]Quote: from Fabi on 2:45 pm on June 13, 2002
shut up about anarchy.
you dont know what you are talking about.
i am tired of it.

Webster's Dictionary defines "Anarchy" as: 1)absence of government; 2)political disorder and violence; 3)violence and confusion

So, Fabi, It looks like understand it perfectly. It is very simple. So, tell me, how will anarchy work and help advance the human population ina peaceful, utiopian way?

[Anonymous]

CI fuck you ! Im sick of you and your stupid things! when mankind evolve to the final stage and realise that they dont need leaders anarchism will be world language!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from the anarchist on 6:46 pm on June 13, 2002
CI fuck you ! Im sick of you and your stupid things! when mankind evolve to the final stage and realise that they dont need leaders anarchism will be world language!

Can you support you claim with a legitimate arguement as to how anarchy will work?

[James]

I don't see why they should answer any of your questions, you left me with many unanswered questions in other threads. I'm still waiting for those answers...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from James on 7:01 pm on June 13, 2002
I don't see why they should answer any of your questions, you left me with many unanswered questions in other threads. I'm still waiting for those answers...


Read my last post in communist contributions, you said i didn't answer your post, where is it? I will try to address your arguements as I always have. As one of the only pure capitalists in this forum, I am debating on many fronts on multiple threads, so naturally I do lose my place sometimes. Point out where I have not ansrwered you, and I will do my best to respond

[Fabi]

CI, the terms and theories of anarchy and anarchism have been the subject to regular ABuse...

the definition you gave is a very good example. if you read anarchists such as chomsky, (to an extent) Proudhon, Emma Goldmann etc., i.e. the ones who should actually know what it is, not even counting the 'people' since the ones mentioned above didnt 'invent' it, you notice that it does NOT have anything to do with the definition the dictionary gives you.

reasons for that would be a general public ignorance to the matter and a conscious confusion through the media. (intentional exchanging of the terms 'marxist' and 'anarchist', treating the two as synonyms and so on...)

violence, btw, was never a significant part of anarchist theory, far from it... at the moment i dont feel like elaborating... i hope you'll just believe me...
else i hope someone else will answer or i'll have to do it in detail later...